Sync Now

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Well beyond the annotations, it enumerates the outcome vocabulary (ok, transient, needs_person), per-step counts, skip reasons, and the 30-second rate-limit behavior with the exact returned string. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a mutating, open-world sync.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then outcome, then edge cases; each sentence carries distinct information. The quoted literal responses are slightly verbose but they are the actual contract the caller will see, so they earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents the return shape, outcome values, skip reasons, and the not-set-up/home cases. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No param guidance is needed or missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: "Run one sync round on the always-on copy." That is unambiguous and clearly not the same as the KB or resume siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling as the alternative path, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete usage context: forcing a round through the backoff window, and the states where it is a no-op (sync off, home copy). Those effectively describe when the call is pointless. It does not, however, route the agent to a different tool for those cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.